WHY WE CHOOSE THIS TOPIC ?




The aim of this blog is to remove whatever doubts that may have entered some people’s minds regarding denial of any violence against Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) at her home, or against Hazrat Ali (a.s.) at the house of Janabe Fatima Zahra(s.a.).
Authentic references have been provided in the fond hope of a definitive conclusion and the eradication of all doubts Inshallah.



Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Report of Ibne Qutaibah Dinawari (276 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

The report of Ibne Qutaibah is as follows:                                          
Abu Bakr was in pursuit of some people to take their allegiance as they were not present there to give allegiance to him. And that is why they had gathered with Ali (a). Abu Bakr in order to take allegiance sent Umar after them. Umar went after them and called out to them, but they did not pay any heed and did not come out of the house. Umar called for firewood and said: By Allah, in whose hand is my life if you don’t come out I would burn down the house with its occupants. They said to him: O Aba Hafs, Fatima is present in this house. Umar replied: Even if that is the case…In another report it is mentioned: Umar came to the door of the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) with a large number of helpers (Ansar) and a few emigrants (Muhajireen). When Fatima heard them she cried: O father, O Messenger of Allah (s)! What all we did not face at the hand of Ibne Khattab [Umar] and Ibne Abi Qahafa [Abu Bakr]…[1]
The personality of Ibne Qutaibah is so trustworthy in the view of Ahle Sunnat that Ibne Taymiyyah, the founder of Wahabism, has also paid tribute him in very positive terms and he says:
All the people of Marakkesh considered him respectable and honored him and anyone who had a view opposed to him was considered as heretic and apostate and they said: A house, which does not have a book of Ibne Qutaibah, has no goodness.[2]
With attention to the time of the death of Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari in the third century (276 A.H.), his proximity to the early period of Islam and the importance of his personality shows that he was a famous intellectual and an elder and leader of Ahle Sunnat in literature, history, jurisprudence, traditions, sciences of Quran and etc…so it is not possible to doubt his veracity and person, that is why they strive to cast aspersions on the reliability of Al-Imamah was Siyasah.
Since Wahabis do not have satisfactory proof to prove their weak claim that is why they have presented the statements of orientalists[3] and some weak statements of modern scholars.[4]




[1] Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 30, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari (d. 276 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Taha Zaini, Mausisatal Halabi wa Shoraka Lil Nashr wat Tauzih and Vol. 1, Pg. 16, Edited: Khalil Mansur, Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. and 1997 A.D.; Edited: Shiri, Vol. 1, Pg. 30; and Edited: Zaini, Vol. 1, Pg. 19.
[2] Kutub wa Rasail wa Fatawa Ibne Taymiyyah, Vol. 17, Pg. 391, Ahmad Abdul Halim bin Taymiyyah Harrani, Abul Abbas (d. 728), Maktaba Ibne Taymiyyah, Second edition, Edited: Abdur Rahman bin Muhammad bin Qasim Asmi Najdi.
[3] Dozy is one of the orientalists and following him some Wahabis of today claim that the book of Imamah was Siyasah is neither ancient nor authentic, because it contains historical doubts and imaginative and inappropriate reports, so the attribution of this work to Ibne Qutaibah is not acceptable. [www.valiasr-aj.com]
[4] For example some Wahabi websites have mentioned the following objections in brief:
Some points, which prove that the attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah is wrong: 1. Biographies of authors: They don’t mention this book among the writings of Ibne Qutaibah. 2. Those who consider this book to be a work of Ibne Qutaibah, have said: The writer of this book was in Damascus and he never left Baghdad, and except for Dinawar, he did not travel anywhere. 3. This book is narrated from a person named Abi Laila as it was not possible to narrate from him. 4. The writer has mentioned some improbable incidents in the topic of conquest of Spain. 5. These same points are true in case of the conquest of Marakkesh. 6. Matters mentioned in this book are filled with foolishness, simplicity, evil, falsehood and deceit; such things are least expected from ordinary writers, what can be said about Ibne Qutaibah? 7. The writer has taken a large number of reports from scholars of Egypt, while the fact is that Ibne Qutaibah definitely did not go to Egypt and had not met those scholars.
Reply to the objections is very simple:
1- In spite of the statements and sayings of ancient scholars and elders of Ahle Sunnat regarding the attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah, there is no scope for the statements of unaware people and that too after a gap of centuries. Some of those who have clarified about the attribution of the book of Al-Imamah was Siyasah to Ibne Qutaibah Dinawari are as follows: Ibne Hajar Haithami in the book of Tathirul Jinaan wal Lisan [Tathirul Jinaan wal Lisan, Pg. 72, Ibne Hajar Haithami, Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ali (d. 973 A.H.)] – Ibne Arabi Maliki in the book of Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, under the points quoted from this book he has clarified about the attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah. (Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, Vol. 1, Pg. 261, Ibne Arabi, d. 543 A.H.) – Najmuddin Umar bin Muhammad Makki, famous as Ibne Fahad in the book of Al-Ittihaful Wara ba Akhabare Ummul Qura, in the events of year 93 A.H. (Al-Ittihaful Wara ba Akhabare Ummul Qura, Ibne Fahad, events of 93 A.H.) – Qadi Abu Abdullah Tanuzi, alias Ibne Shabat in the book, Al-Sila as-Simtiya (Al-Sila as-Simtiya, Al-Tanuzi, Part II, Chapter 34) – Taqiuddin Fasi Makki in the book of Al-Iqdul Thameen (Fasi Makki, Al-Iqdul Thameen, Vol. 6, Pg. 72) and other clear statements of scholars and elders of Ahle Sunnat are also there, but we have refrained from quoting them all.
Some Ahle Sunnat senior scholars, in spite of accepting the reliability of attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah and admitting to the bitter and unbearable facts quoted in it from the early period of Islam, have blamed him why he has not distorted and censored the historical facts! On the contrary, why he has not, like others, refrained from quoting such facts?
Ibne Arabi has expressed following views in Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim:
The most unbearable of social matters is the existence of ignorant intellectuals and heretical fraudsters. Ignorant intellectuals are like Ibne Qutaibah, who in the book of Al-Imamah was Siyasah, has not observed the practice of concealing the defects of companions if the attribution of all matters of this book is correct.
Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, Vol. 1, Pg. 261, Ibne Arabi (d. 543 A.H.)
2- As for the absence of the name of this book among his writings as seen in some books, the reply is that usually the biographers mention some books of the concerned person and then say: et al. They don’t mention all the books of any writer.
3- As for the point that Ibne Qutaibah did not leave Baghdad, except for Dainawar. In order to disprove this claim, it would be better to refer to the book of Aalaam Zarkali, who says: He resided in Kufa! In the same way, it is mentioned in Al-Muntazam: He lived for sometime in Kufa also and it is here that he expired. (Al-Muntazam fee Tarikh Muluk wal Umam, Vol. 12, Pg. 276, Abul Faraj Ibne Jauzi, d. 597 A.H.)
4- Narrating of the report by Abi Laila is in the form of message, an act, which many historians have performed. His quotation was through the channel of Laith.
5- With regard to Marakkseh and narrating the report about the conquest of Andulas, the reply is very simple: (a) He has narrated the event from very aged persons who were present in this battle. There are many aged people in history who have narrated historical facts; so much so that it is narrated that during the period of Harun there was a persons who had met the Holy Prophet (s). (b) It is possible that it is directly quoted, because it is present in excess in books of traditional reports. (c) With regard to certain points it is narrated from a lady who witnessed the conquest of Andulas on 92 A.H. It can also be said that in some versions the word of ‘they mentioned’ is mentioned, which completely removes the doubt. In the same way, it can be said that it has been dispatched here as well.
6- The reason for some doubts against his books is that he was a memorizer of 60000 traditional reports and he has narrated the matter for memory and his students have noted down from him. The instance of doubts is natural in such a case.
(Al-Muntazam fee Tarikh Muluk wal Umam, Vol. 12, Pg. 276, Abul Faraj Jauzi, d. 597 A.H.) Therefore arising of some doubts is possible and reasonable.
7- His quoting from the scholars of Egypt does not necessitate him to be present in Egypt, because numerous Egypt scholars used to frequently travel to Kufa and Shaam.
8- In the end it should be reminded that all deniers of attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah are from the later period and they are ignorant and weak persons. It is better that instead of referring to the statements of such persons one relies on the statements of ancient scholars, some of which we have quoted above.